Scientific Validity of Proposed Public Education Materials for Balanced Treatment of Creationism and Evolution in Elementary Science Classrooms of Alabama

Abstract

The political fight for the inclusion of “scientific creationism” in public school curricula has generated reactions of scientists from many disciplines, who nearly unanimously dismiss this material as unfit for science teaching. Because some “creationist” materials were written specifically for science classes, such as general science, biology, and geological modules, they should be evaluated prior to use for scientific content and accuracy. Should these materials fail to conform with the body of generally accepted, modern scientific knowledge, then they do not belong in the science classrooms of our public schools.I have examined several of the books written by “creationists” for public school science classes, and evaluated them for bias and distortion in their treatment of scientific facts, hypotheses and conclusions. All of the materials I examined exhibit statements of distortion and bias.In addition to unsatisfactory scientific content, I have also noted a degree of dogmatism. This is curious because one of the objections of the “scientific creationists” to current content in public school science classrooms is the teaching of modern science in dogmatic fashion: for example, Darwinian evolution is taught as dogma, in conjunction with no other alternatives (i.e. “scientific creationism”).These materials proposed for the public school science classroom do not belong there, because they do not teach modern science. The lack of scientific validity of “science creationist” literature should be emphasized in debate and discussion at especially the local level.